Philippines debates U.S. combat role against rebels

Manila - The Pentagon's plans to send U.S. combat troops to fight rebels in the southern Philippines have stirred conflicting emotions in a country still struggling to shake the shadow of its former colonizer.

Here in the capital, officials are divided over whether allowing foreign troops to fight on Philippine soil is wise -- or constitutional -- and one critic has accused the administration of treason.

Many Filipinos have voiced approval of the proposed U.S. operation, saying the country needs to tackle terrorism to improve its image, its economy and its self-esteem. But others, especially in the Muslim-dominated south, warn of an anti-American backlash.

"There's still this strong undercurrent of nationalism in the Philippines and it dates back to the United States' colonial history with the Filipinos," a Western diplomat here said. "Also, there's a sense of standing up to the big brother, to show some spine . . . as they are trying to think of themselves as sovereign equals with the United States."

The operation announced Thursday calls for the deployment of nearly 3,000 U.S. Army, Marine and Navy forces to Jolo Island to help Philippine soldiers wipe out the Abu Sayyaf rebels, a radical Muslim group the United States has labeled a terrorist organization.

In announcing the plan, a Pentagon spokesman said: "The intent is for U.S. troops to actively participate. . . . At this point, we're going into it saying the mission will go on until both sides agree it is finished."

Some Philippine government officials have contradicted that statement, saying no combat role would be permitted for U.S. troops. But early today a senior Philippine military official, who requested anonymity, confirmed that U.S. forces would engage in combat on Jolo, alongside their Filipino counterparts.

U.S. officials have alleged that the Abu Sayyaf is linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The group, however, is more widely feared as a band of thugs who have kidnapped and killed Filipinos and Westerners.

"The situation in the south has been exasperating," said Alex Magno, a professor of political science at the University of the Philippines. "It's dragging down the whole country."

Magno said opinion polls last year showed "overwhelming" support -- 90 percent -- for another joint U.S.-Philippine operation against the Abu Sayyaf on the southern island of Basilan, where American forces have previously played a supporting role. But when Pentagon sources stressed this week that the next U.S. deployment would be far more aggressive, objections were raised here almost immediately, as officials questioned whether allowing foreign troops to conduct combat operations in the Philippines would be constitutional.

Philippine Sen. Aquilino Pimentel on Friday accused Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes of "treason in its basest form," according to the Philippine Inquirer newspaper. Pimentel said Reyes was turning the country into a "deadly laboratory for the testing of the effectiveness of U.S. troops, tactics and weaponry against so-called terrorists."

Seeking to soothe the fears of the plan's critics, Reyes assured reporters it would not infringe on the country's sovereignty. "I am categorically saying that anything that [the military planners] say that contradicts the constitution and the laws will not materialize," he said.

Reyes leaves today for Hawaii to discuss the Pentagon plan and other counterterrorism issues with Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the Pacific commander. Then he will travel to Washington for meetings with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials.

A spokesman for Reyes, Lt. Col. Danilo Servando, said Friday: "Right now, what we have is the approval of the president, in principle, of an exercise. That's all we have right now. . . . The shape, the form, is still something for discussion by both sides."

Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, a former armed forces chief of staff, said he would support a training exercise. "But if the American troops participate in combat . . . that is another matter. It's a question of sovereignty," he said.

A spokesman for President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo insisted that there would be no combat role for U.S. troops on Jolo Island. "What we're saying is the Americans will come in," Ignacio Bunye said in a telephone interview. "They will come in as trainers and advisers. They will have to be under the jurisdiction of Philippine armed forces officials. Anything outside that is unacceptable."

Magno, the university professor, noted that a controversy erupted last year over joint exercises on nearby Basilan Island but quickly subsided. He said he expects a similar denouement this year.

"Everyone here raises a constitutional question about everything," he said. "The public is tired of that. They want problems solved."

On Jolo -- where U.S. military assessment teams are to arrive within days, according to defense officials -- sentiment is mixed.

Datu Muedzul-Lail Kiram, a neighborhood councilor in the town of Sulu, said in an interview by telephone that he opposes a U.S. troop presence because he fears people in the largely Muslim south resent the U.S. role in putting down Islamic insurgents in 1899 and the early 20th century. "I am afraid the second Moro-American War would be triggered by this exercise," he said. "We don't want the Americans to invade our homeland."

But Fazlur-Rahman A. Abdulla, chief nurse of Sulu Provincial Hospital on Jolo, said by telephone that he had no problem with U.S. troops coming to fight the Abu Sayyaf. Years of fighting and isolation have taken their toll on Jolo, he said. "The damage to this town is almost irreparable," he said, "so if it needs someone to come to straighten this out, so be it." -- Washington Post

Brudirect.com